Nach den Erfolgen im zivilen Bereich will Airbus nun am Markt für Militärflugzeuge kräftig mitmischen. Neben Transportern, Tankern und Aufklärungsflugzeugen hat der europäische Hersteller die veraltete Bomberflotte des Westens im Visier. „Wir planen ein Konkurrenzmodell zum amerikanischen B52-Bomber“, sagt Konzernchef Noel Forgeard. Die achtstrahlige Maschine, die in Zeiten des Kalten Krieges entwickelt wurde, kam auch in Afghanistan zum Einsatz. Sie fliegt 16 000 Kilometer weit und kann bis zu 50 Bomben mit jeweils über 200 Kilogramm Gewicht abwerfen.
Noch hat Airbus das Projekt „B52“ nicht offiziell gestartet. Deutsche Branchenkenner sind sich sicher, dass das multinationale Unternehmen das Geschäft mit einem Nachfolgemodell nicht allein den US-Herstellern überlässt. Schon heute bietet Airbus Industrie umgebaute Zivilmaschinen als fliegende Tanker an. Internationale Wehrexperten haben in den vergangenen Wochen mehrfach gefordert, dass das westliche Bündnis auch in Zukunft auf strategische Langstreckenbomber nicht verzichten dürfe.
After success in the civilian field, Airbus is now hoping to push into the market for military aircraft. Besides transports, tankers and reconnaissance aircraft, the European manufacturer has the outdated Western bomber fleet in their sights. "We are planning a competing model to the American B52 bombers," says CEO Noel Forgeard. The aging machine, which was developed during the Cold War, was also used in Afghanistan. It flies 16,000 miles and can carry up to 50 bombs, each weighing more than 200 kilograms.
Still, Airbus has not officially launched a "B52" project. German industry experts are confident that the multinational business will not leave a successor model only to U.S. manufacturers. Today Airbus Industrie has rebuilt machines as civil airborne tankers. International defense experts have in recent weeks on several occasions requested that the Western alliance not ignore the future of long-haul strategic bombers.
http://forums.jetphotos.net/archive/index.php/t-21820.htmlThe french weekly av-mag came up with a pretty looking realistic one.
They "revealed" the french airforce agreed to order the A380 MRTB. Based on the A380F, the MultiRoleTransportBomber double decker could carry either
- 150 tons/300,000 lbs of freight over 10,000 km/5,400 mls, or
- 100 tons/200,000 lbs over 16,000 km/8,640 mls or
- 600 fully equiped soldiers, whose seats were to be accomodated on pallets loadable thru the side cargo doors
For the bomber and tanker roles, the specially modified freight holds could accomodate
-a total 8 revolving barrels with 8 Scalp cruise missiles each or
-removable tanks and assorted flying boom.
In both cases, some of the transport capabilities could be retained with the possibilities to airlift support technical crews and sets of parts the way are done today with KC.10 Extenders.
What vented the prank
- the artist illustrations in the cover inset and in content renders a 3 tone-camouflaged 380, whereas the french airforce also goes Nato-Grey-low viz
- some evocative last names for people behind the project.
Jemiba said:Do you mean this "design". It' from the a now defunct amsat.waika9.com site
GTX said:Old topic, but I seem to recall seeing an artist's concept of an A340 bomber years ago. It was probably purely fictional, but would anyone still have a copy or know more?
Civil airliners are the wrong architecture for simple conversion to bombers. A heavy load of weapons needs to be stored at the cg so they can be off-loaded without excessive pitch changes. So typically a bomber will have a centrally located weapons bay and the landing gear arranged so as to be clear, maybe units forward/aft or gears which fold forward or afterwards or LG well outboard on the wings. Civil aircraft typically fold the LG inboard across the center of the fuselage, covering exactly where the weapons bay would go.
I know the P8 has a bay aft of the central fuselage, but it’s tiny compared to any of what would be described as a bomber.
When A400m was considered for such role a conveyor system was proposed with weapons coming out the back of the aeroplane similar to airdropping freight. This is fair enough if the starting platform inherently has a rear loading ramp, but to shoe horn one of those into a civil platform really means start again. When the modifications get this deep an inappropriate starting position imposes constraints which become ever more pointless and expensive as development advances.
On the one hand, funny. On the other, it worked pretty good on the VC10, DC10, and L1011. And the Iranians are still flying 747 conversions from the 70s. I think that may be more of an issue with Boeing getting managed into incompetence rather than a deficiency in the 767 as a tanker.Look how difficult it is to convert a 767 into an aerial refueler lol.
Both the L1011 and DC10 cruise missile carrier design had ALCM launch bays forward and aft of the landing gear. As long as you alternate launching from each of the two bays CG problems should be alleviated.Civil airliners are the wrong architecture for simple conversion to bombers. A heavy load of weapons needs to be stored at the cg so they can be off-loaded without excessive pitch changes. So typically a bomber will have a centrally located weapons bay and the landing gear arranged so as to be clear, maybe units forward/aft or gears which fold forward or afterwards or LG well outboard on the wings. Civil aircraft typically fold the LG inboard across the center of the fuselage, covering exactly where the weapons bay would go.